If you guys tell me most Tea Partiers have some ideological footing, then I absolutely take back what I said. Every media source I have seen, including Fox, has shown people that I just didn't see as positive faces for the movement. I know Rush loves to rail on the elite but in a very real sense he is an elite. I don't mean that as coming from a particular family or going to a particular school, but Rush is extremely intelligent, informed and well-read. I think we need some more elites. As Rush always says, our best and brightest are out working jobs and don't have time for all this protest stuff, but this Tea Party thing is bringing those people out. I hope that is true. As my law school prof (Lino Graglia) said the other day,...

One of my professors today asks, "Do you think lawyers in the U.S. are generally more liberal or more conservative?" I piped up, "Before or after law school." She laughs and says, "After." I say "more liberal." She smiles and says, "I hope so." Totally straight-faced. I then said, "I know you do." As with other socialists, most law professors believe they are there to perfect you, not simply to educate you.

I have no doubt but that guy has no idea who the Republican leadership is. Who does? For the Average Joe to not know anything about politics is one thing, but for someone going on a political debate show and not know is embarrassing. This, to me, is an issue with the "Tea Party" movement. There needs to be some unifying ideological and intellectual framework here. Are we really going to be the party of angry protesters with no ideas? Isn't that what the other party is? We all need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Read Kirk, Hayek, whatever... but we really can't just read Glenn Beck's ADD-enhanced books. They are useful in that they go point by point but there needs to be something deeper. Again, not for everyone necessarily, but...

Check out this article on free speech at the University of Texas

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/20 09/07/29/0729utwindows.html

Political propaganda in tax-funded buildings is okay, but a flag in a private parking lot is bad. Disturbing.

If it is to be a sacrificial lamb, I hope it is Palin. NOT because she's the "one we love" but because she bothers me and I wish she would go away. I have never seen a body politic show such disdain for accomplishment and such affection for mediocrity. It is embarrassing. Reagan was not a "simple man" in the way that Palin is a simple woman. It is well documented how much he studied. He narrowed his studies to a handful of great books then he wore them out. His philosophy was consistent because it was so thoroughly developed, not because he liked to say the same thing over and over because he couldn't think of anything else to say. Palin is no Reagan. No one else in this field is, either, but it makes more sense to support those with...

National security and diplomacy law is not usually ruled on by courts because our courts can't give advisory opinions. Someone actually injured by the disputed act has to bring a case that would find its way up to the Supreme Court. Legal memoranda within the Executive is what makes most of our law in this area. That can be tough to swallow, but the Constitution's "Case or Controversy" requirement doesn't allow for much else. The President swears to uphold the Constitution and, as Lincoln did in suspending habeas, going to war after Ft Sumter, and emancipating slaves, Presidents are required/allowed to interpret the Constitution independently. This is especially true in diplomacy law. This doesn't surprise me at all.